The Nation Newspaper

Tag: tightrope

  • Minimum wage: Labour walks tightrope

    Minimum wage: Labour walks tightrope

    Citing workers’ reduced purchasing power forced by prevailing harsh economic realities, labour has kicked its heels in, insisting on an upward review of the minimum wage from N18, 000 to N56, 000. But employers disagree, citing devastating effects of economic recession on organised businesses. Government on its part is dilly-dallying. The stage appears set for a showdown with labour. But there are fears that factionalisation in the labour movement and the economic downturn might conspire to throw spanner in the works. Assistant Editor CHIKODI OKEREOCHA reports.

    The situation is dicey. Despite its seeming hard stance on the National Minimum Wage issue, labour appears to be walking a tightrope. Even before labour rode on the platform of last Monday’s Workers’ Day celebration to renew the push for an upward review of the minimum wage from the current N18, 000 to 56, 000, there were indications that organised labour may have been swimming against the tide.

    Although, the law makes the review of the National Minimum Wage every five years legitimate, those schooled in the dynamics of labour unionism fear that labour’s sustained agitation for a better deal for workers may suffer serious setback following the emergence of factions in the labour movement. Private sector employers are also kicking, insisting that the crippling effects of economic recession on organised businesses have made it impossible to pay a new minimum wage.

    The Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) has been engulfed in leadership tussle since its last 11th National Delegates’ Conference in February 2015 ended in a fiasco.  A supremacy battle between two factions led by Comrades Ayuba Wabba and Joe Ajaero over the disputed outcome of the Delegates’ Conference has since thrown the labour movement into confusion. Ajaero had alleged that the election, which produced Wabba as NLC’s National President was never  transparent and the outcome therefore, unacceptable.

    Efforts by former Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole and other past labour leaders to broker peace between both factions failed to yield positive result.  The recommendations of the Reconciliatory Committee headed by former NLC President Hassan Sunmonu were never implemented either. The feud later snowballed into the formation of a new labour centre, United Labour Congress (ULC), headed by Ajaero. That was in December last year. The splinter group boasts no fewer than 25 industrial unions.

    Some of the affiliates of the ULC include National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), Nigeria Union on Electricity Employees (NUEE), Nigeria Union of Mine Workers, National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Employees (NUBIFFE), Nigeria Union of Rail Workers, National Union of Lottery Agents, & Employees, Association of Nigeria Aviation Professionals (ANAP) and National Association of Aircraft Pilots and Engineers (NAAPE).

    Now, the ghost of labour’s failure to remain a united entity may have come back to haunt the labour movement when it needed cohesion most. The thinking within labour circles is that the inability of the labour leaders to mend the cracks in the wall before it came down crashing may throw spanner in the works and weaken the current agitation for a new minimum wage, rather than strengthen it. They fear that the Federal Government and private sector employers might cash in on labour’s disunity to deny workers an enhanced pay package.

    Such fears are not without justification. For instance, while the Wabba-led NLC and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) have jointly presented a N56, 000 national minimum wage demand to the Federal Government, the Ajaero-led ULC pushed for a N96, 000 as minimum wage, insisting that workers deserved even more. Ajaero, however, assured that the different figures presented by the ULC and the combination of NLC and TUC will not create any problem.

    According to him, the three labour centres have found themselves in a worst situation and overcome it. He said this happened during the last fuel price increase and the palliative committee later set up to negotiate with the government. “I don’t think we are going to have problem with 96, 000 or 56, 000 as figures. We will harmonise it. Just like before we went for palliative committee, we had different positions,” the labour leader said.

    Despite Ajaero’s assurances that the three federations will unite and work together to harmonise their different positions on the new national minimum wage in the interest of Nigerians and the workers, recent developments do not seem to inspire such optimism.

    Indications that the emergence of factions in the labour community might throw spanner in the works emerged on Monday during the May Day Rally when NLC and ULC held parallel ceremonies in Asaba and Effurun, Delta State, respectively.

    As if that was not enough signal that the agitation for a better deal for workers may hit the rocks, Minister of Labour and Employment Dr. Chris Ngige inadvertently brought nearer home the danger the leadership crisis in the labour movement poses to the current agitation for a wage review when he blamed Monday’s disruption and protest by workers during the May Day celebration in Abuja on factions in the NLC.

    This year’s May Day Rally with the theme, “Labour Relations in Economic Recession: An Appraisal” was marred by protests. For close to one hour, angry workers barred government officials from delivering the speech from the Federal Government.

    According to Wabba and his TUC counterpart, Comrade Bobboi Kagama, Nigerian workers expressed their anger and disappointment on the non-implementation of the minimum wage thereby disrupting the 2017 May Day celebration.

    The aggrieved workers were said to have insisted that the Federal Government had a responsibility to give them a definite position on the lingering issue of a new minimum wage in the country. The absence of the President and his deputy from the event did not go down well with them.

    But Ngige thinks otherwise. He said the workers’ rage was not about minimum wage or the absence of the President and his deputy at the rally. Rather, the venue was infiltrated by non-workers due to factionalisation within the labour federation.

    The minister, who said his conclusion was based on intelligence report, however, assured that government will address the issue of minimum wage and the backlog of promotion arrears and allowances.

    “So, workers should be patient and give us some time. Within the next quarter, the minimum wage committee will start functioning and in the next three months too backlog of all arrears and other allowances that are due to them will be paid,” Ngige  assured.

    But it was not the first time factionalisation was believed to have frustrated labour from presenting a common, united position on a national issue. For instance, both factions held parallel May Day events in 2015 and 2016. The feud between the two gladiators was also said to be responsible for weakening the badly organised general strike in May last year against fuel price hike.

    While the May 2016 struggle against fuel price hike was on, the Ajaero faction could not join the ranks of workers on strike called by Wabba’s faction. Instead, his group opted to hold meetings and collaborate with government in finding solution to the issue. Because of the internal crisis, the leadership of the mainstream faction led by Wabba could not adequately mobilise affiliate industrial unions and workers for the action.

    Recall that when the government invited the factions to a meeting over the issue, Wabba reportedly said he would not hold meeting with government alongside the Ajaero faction. This forced government to hold separate meetings with the factions. The result was that as soon as the strike threat was over, government lost interest and, to date, has done much, if anything, cushion the effects of the policy on workers and Nigerians.

    This was in stark contrast to January 2012 when millions of Nigerian working masses, youths and students, market women and artisans as well as the rural and urban poor, participated in strikes and demonstrations against increase in fuel prices by the erstwhile Jonathan government. The fact that then there was a united labour platform strengthened that struggle.

     

    Economic recession

    is sore point

    The current N18, 000 National Minimum Wage Act was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 6, 2011. Both houses of the National Assembly passed it into law, with a proviso for it to be reviewed upwards after five years.

    The law, which increased the national minimum wage across the country from N7, 500 to N18, 000 per month, also states that once an employer in the public or private sector has a workforce of about 50 persons, he or she is bound by the law to pay a minimum wage of N18, 000.

    Apparently drawing strength from the law, NLC and TUC, on April 27, 2016, made a proposal of N56, 000 minimum wage to the Federal Government. The ULC on its part proposed N96, 000.

    According to Wabba, workers’ demand for an upward review of the minimum wage from the current N18, 000 to N52, 000 was reasonable, considering the prevailing harsh economic realities.

    He told The Nation, for instance, that rising inflation was biting harder on Nigerian workers and reducing their purchasing power, even as high cost of goods and services were seriously affecting workers’ overall welfare.

    “It’s time for the minimum wage to be reviewed both in law and practice, because the cycle is due and inflation is biting very hard, high cost of goods and services is affecting workers seriously,” he stated.

    Wabba asked, “What is the value of N18, 000 when it was signed, looking at inflation, purchasing power and ability to pay?” While noting that NLC and TUC have been reasonable in making such demand, he expressed hope that other social partners will look at it from labour’s perspective, commitment and nationalism in putting up those demands.

    Wabba is not done. He added that an upward review of the minimum wage was imperative in view of the current fight against corruption. Hear him: “If you don’t pay workers well to meet up with their bills we can’t fight corruption.” He warned that workers should not be treated as slaves, as companies are still making profit.

    The labour leader reiterated that Nigerian workers are at the receiving end of the present economic crisis caused by crashing oil prices in the international market. He argues that it is only when workers are paid well and as and when due, that the productive arm of the economy can get the boost to support the resuscitation of the depressed economy.

    The General Secretary, National Union of Food Beverage and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE), Comrade Peter Ozo Eson, agrees with him. He said Nigeria’s only way out of the present economic quagmire is a well remunerated workforce.

    “It is unfortunate that workers are being made to suffer the effects of recession, which they were not the cause. Owing workers or depressing them will not be the way out of recession. To get out of recession, salary should be paid as and when due,” he said.

    Ozo Eson maintained that it is when workers spend the salary earned that the manufacturing and other service sectors presently going through various challenges can get a respite.

    He said the organised labour is now ready to ensure that no employer, be it federal, state or private employers, owe workers, while equally pushing for the renegotiation of the existing minimum wage.

     

    Employers disagree

    Incidentally, the same recession cited by labour as reason for demanding a wage increase for workers is being bandied by employers for their inability to pay a new wage. The Nigeria Employers Consultative Association (NECA), which handles the private sector, was emphatic that private operators will not be able to pay new wage increase now.

    It is not that NECA is unaware that the current economic downturn had taken huge toll on workers. Rather, NECA argues that private operators are hamstrung by the same economic depression that has seen their businesses dwindle in recent times, forcing some of them to reduce their workforce or and close shops.

    NECA Director General Mr. Olusegun Oshinowo recently urged stakeholders in the socio-labour community and players in the Nigerian industrial relations’ system to be circumspect in their approach to the heated issue of the national minimum wage. He, however, admitted that there was indeed, an understanding that the national minimum wage would be due for discussion after five years.

    “The clamour for discussions by the NLC and TUC is therefore, legitimate” Oshinowo said, adding that there is a time-tested and enshrined procedure for the discussion of the national minimum wage, which entails the setting up of a National Minimum Wage Committee.

    The Committee, he said, comprises representatives of the Federal Government, led by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, State Governments, usually represented by three state governors, employers in the private sector under the aegis of NECA and organised labour as represented by NLC and TUC.

    Oshinowo said the principle of reasonableness and superior arguments has always carried the day during minimum wage dialogue and that conclusions at the platform would not necessarily be for or against increase. He said it would be to examine the need for or against and justifications for whatever positions are canvassed.

    The NECA DG said it is the Committee’s responsibility to sort out the issue of desirability of review or sustenance of status quo in the event that timing for upward review is inappropriate. To him, labour’s demand for N52, 000 new minimum wage is unreasonable and unrealistic.

    But Wabba would have none of that. He told The Nation that while those dismissing labour’s demand as unreasonable and unrealistic are entitled to their opinion, the reality is that workers presently cannot feed themselves because of the high cost of goods and services.

    His words: “Everybody has the right to his or her opinion, but the opinion of the workers is that a review of the minimum wage is legitimate both by law and practice. Five years cycle is legitimate. Many workers cannot send their children to school, many cannot pay their rent, and many cannot even go to work regularly.”

    Oshinowo, however, insisted that at the National Minimum Wage Committee, employers will canvass the position that private sector cannot afford a pay increase at this point in time when economic recession and its attendant devastating effects on organised businesses is visible.

    For Ajaero, the issue of National Minimum Wage is an inclusive one. He, therefore, warned that minimum wage cannot be negotiated without NECA who handles the private sector. He pointed out that all workers, both in the private and public sectors should be adequately represented, as well as the state governments.

    He has an ally in Wabba in that score. Wabba said it was necessary for the Technical Committee for Palliatives and Minimum Wage set up to negotiate the minimum wage to be comprehensive to avoid possible hitches. He said this was why there was the need to carry along State Governors, the Organised Private Sector (OPS) and other critical stakeholders.

    Wabba said the Committee will be a 26-member Committee where the state governors will be represented, “because they have actually been the problem militating against the review of the minimum wage.” He said left for the Federal Government, there would not have been any problem with regards to implementing the new minimum wage.

     

    MAN, OPS also

    The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) and the Abuja Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) have also argued that the N56, 000 demanded as minimum wage is unrealistic.

    MAN President Dr. Frank Jacobs and ACCI President Mr. Tony Ejinkeonye pointed out that the current economic realities might make it difficult for the Federal Government to afford labour’s N56, 000 minimum wage demand. They, therefore, called for caution.

    “Everybody is entitled to make demands to satisfy his or her personal interest, but the question is: ‘can this economy withstand that kind of minimum wage?” Jacobs asked, pointing out that much as it is okay for labour to demand a wage rise, the system may not pay.

    On his part, Ejinkeonye admitted that the level of inflation in the country had made it imperative for workers’ salaries to be reviewed upward. He, however, said there was the need for such review to be tailored to government’s ability to pay.

    “I support the minimum wage, which supports an increase in remuneration for workers, but it has to be tailored carefully. If there is going to be salary increment, the state of our economy has to be really checked so that if government is to take a decision, it would be taken in a holistic manner,” Ejinkeonye said.

    Similarly, the immediate past President General of Maritime Workers’ Union of Nigeria (MWUN), Comrade Tony Nted, said current economic realities do not support a wage increase. “I have said it before and I am very upright; that this is not the right time; that we are going through pains, but we have to bear it. We have to bear and pay the price for the recession,” he said.

    He told The Nation in a chat that asking government to increase the minimum wage when some states cannot even pay the current N18, 000 is wrong. “I think the time is inappropriate. I am not saying the review is not due, or that what they are paying is right; I am looking at the timing, which is not right,” Nted argued.

    The labour unionist said rather than ask for a new minimum wage, labour should ask government to create the enabling environment for business to thrive, so that investors can come in. “If there is no security investors will not come. In other parts of the world, government doesn’t create jobs; it is the private sector that creates jobs.

    “Government only creates the enabling environment for businesses to thrive. Government’s policy should be stable to attract investors. Government should also try to understand that business and politics should not be mixed together. There is difference between business and politics,” Nted added.

    Oshinowo agrees with him, noting that the “The priority now should be for all stakeholders to join hands with government to deliver on inclusive growth that will ensure job security and job creation.”

    Where does this leave workers whose standard of living has evidently deteriorated? Will labour’s argument that the new minimum wage will make sure that the poor or the poorest of the worker is protected against exploitation hit the right chord in the ears of government and private employers? Is labour fighting a lost battle?

    These are questions agitating the minds of stakeholders, as labour intensifies the push for a new minimum wage. Such questions are even more pertinent considering the fact that some state governors, citing sharp decline in national revenue triggered by fall in oil prices earlier threatened to stop paying the N18, 000 minimum wage or retrench workers.

    Besides, some governors and lawmakers are said to be currently pushing a bill, which seeks to remove the National Minimum Wage from the exclusive to the concurrent legislative list. The bill, which scaled through the first reading before the House embarked on Easter recess, is said to be ready for second reading on the floor of the House soon.

    Expectedly, the move has not gone down well with labour. The Wabba-led NLC is already threatening fire and brimstone. He said he will mobilise Nigerians against governors and the National Assembly members for sponsoring such an anti-workers’ legislation that seeks to “strangulate workers.”

    Wabba argued that all over the world, minimum wage is on the exclusive list. “We are talking about protecting the most vulnerable group. That is the principle and philosophy. It is an International Labour Organisation (ILO) core issue under decent work agenda. It is a core ILO issue that all countries are conformed to,” he fumed.

    Ajaero is no less peeved. At the pre-2017 May Day seminar organised by ULC, in Lagos, he said the move was ill-motivated to deny workers their right to live well, which is what some of the governors have been advocating but “we will mobilise against them.” He said if the planned delisting of wage from the exclusive legislative list succeeds, it means that the country would no longer have a national minimum wage.

    “It means that each state of the federation will be empowered to legislate and arrive at what should be their respective minimum,” Ajaero said. He noted that the concurrent list stipulates that powers are shared jointly by both the central and regional or state governments as stipulated in the Constitution. Even though both governments can make law on matters that fall under the concurrent list, the central government is supreme.

     

    Govt’s position

    The Technical Committee on Palliative and Minimum Wage headed by Ngige had submitted its report to the Federal Government and advised the government to immediately set up the Tripartite Committee on Minimum Wage, which will negotiate a desirable national minimum wage for the country.

    Ngige assured that government would address the issue of minimum wage, including issue of backlog of promotion areas and allowances. He explained that although, these were captured in the 2016 budget, the releases, for some reasons, could not come. He, however, said the President of the Senate has now given his assurance on the matter.

    “So we are going to capture them in the 2017 budget and once it’s captured in the appropriation, the Minister of Finance will handle the rest,” Ngige said, noting that the issue of minimum wage was being delayed because the government employed what it called a tripartite negotiation also known as social dialogue so as to capture all sectors.

    He said this was because the issue did not concern the government or public sector alone, but also the private sector so, it needed time to carry everybody along. “We have finished the framework for the composition of the committee of the minimum wage and we have passed it round to government to source the requisite and qualified persons that will man this committee,” he explained.

    While urging workers to be patient, the minister promised that within the next quarter, the minimum wage committee will start functioning and in the next three months too, backlog of all arrears and other allowances that are due to workers will be paid.

    “The Federal Government has been friendly to workers to the extent that it even went ahead and initiated the bailout fund. No government has done that before and that was because we did not want to lay off any worker,” Ngige stated.

    The minister’s position is in sharp contrast with the one he earlier canvassed. He had earlier said that the review of salaries of workers at the moment was not on the table because of the country’s economic challenges. He said other tiers of government that have more money could pay higher wages.

    Will Ngige’s change of gear and promises douse the agitation for a new minimum wage? More importantly, will the internal crisis in the labour movement allow it close ranks and force down the hands of governors and private sector operators to pay a new minimum wage? The situation is indeed, dicey.

  • Ondo PDP walks on tightrope

    Ondo PDP walks on tightrope

    The substitution of Mr. Eyitayo Jegede’s name with Chief Jimoh Ibrahim as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the November 26 governorship election in Ondo State has sent the Governor Olusegun Mimiko-led faction back to the drawing board. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the likely effect of the tussle over the ticket on the party’s chances at the polls.

    LESS than a month to the November 26 governorship election in Ondo State, the crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has taken a new turn. The final list of candidates released last week by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has compounded the crisis within the ruling party; with the substitution of Mr. Eyitayo Jegede’s name with Chief Jimoh Ibrahim as the candidate of the party. The leadership tussle at the national level polarised the fold into two groups: the Ali Modu-Sheriff group and the Ahmed Makarfi group. The division has permeated into the state chapters, including Ondo. The INEC had initially recognised Jegede (SAN), who emerged at the primary organised by the Makarfi faction, as the party’s flag bearer for the poll.  Ibrahim was elected to fly the party’s flag at the convention held in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, by the Sheriff group.

    This development has put the Olusegun Mimiko-led faction, which is loyal to the Makarfi group, in a quandary. Reacting to the development, Mimiko cried foul, alleging that the INEC was biased. To Mimiko and his group, the INEC’s decision was influenced by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) that was determined to take over the state at all costs.

    Jegede’s supporters went wild in Akure at the weekend, protesting the decision. They set bonfire on the highways, disrupting vehicular movement and commercial activities for hours in the state capital. Mimiko, shocked by the INEC decision, made an impromptu trip to Abuja to reverse the electoral commission’s decision. Faulting the decision, he argued that what the commission did had no basis in law and politics.

    According to the governor, the electoral body allowed itself to be misled by the order of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, because the order was on the PDP leadership tussle, which has nothing to do with the governorship candidate in Ondo State. He said there was no justification in removing Jegede’s name, because Ibrahim did not get a court order asking the INEC to recognise him as the PDP candidate. Mimiko advised the INEC to reconsider its decision and revert to the status quo.

    In his reaction, the party’s Chairman, Chief Clement Faboyede, alleged that it was the APC that influenced the INEC to remove Jegede’s name and replace it with that of Ibrahim. He alleged that the agency was playing out the APC’s script to take over Ondo by all means. He said: “We will not surrender to the APC’s intimidation. Jegede is our candidate and nobody can subvert the choice of the people of Ondo. We stand by our choice, because we know Jegede has the capacity and skill to take Ondo to the next level. INEC cannot foist a candidate who is not a member of the PDP on us.”

    But, a lawyer, Mr. Akin Akinmusere, said Justice Abang, in his new directive reaffirmed his earlier ruling that the INEC should recognise only candidates presented for election by the Sheriff faction. To Akinmusere, INEC has no option than to abide by the ruling of the court.

    The National Secretary of the Sheriff faction, Prof. Wale Oladipo, said the electoral umpire did the right thing by recognising Ibrahim as the authentic candidate.

    He said: “INEC’s decision was based on the valid ruling of the Federal High Court that declared Jimoh Ibrahim as the authentic candidate of the party.”

    Oladipo added: “The court declared that INEC shall accept and process for the purpose of its functions and activities in organisation and conduct of Ondo State governorship election only the nomination of Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim who emerged from primary election conducted by the first and second judgment Creditors/Applicants on August 29, 2016 as the candidate of the PDP in the said Ondo State governorship election slated for November 2016.

    “We have not asked for any favour for our candidate. He went through the party primary and won. We submitted his name and that of his running mate to INEC. In the process of doing this, a court order came to reaffirm him (Jimoh Ibrahim) as the authentic candidate. INEC has complied with the court order.

    “The PDP as a party is committed to winning Ondo State again and again, because the state belongs to the PDP from the onset. The opposition had tried in the past to win the state, but failed; just as the PDP had tried to win Lagos State severally but failed. We are full in support of our candidate, who is Dr. Jimoh Folorunso Ibrahim, and we will back him to victory.”

    The Appeal Court has decided to start hearing Jegede’s appeal today. The appellate court said the urgency of the issue involved prompted it to accord it accelerated hearing.

     

    INEC clarifies position

     

    INEC has absolved itself of the allegations of bias and partisanship. Its spokesman, Mr. Nick Dazang, said the commission was not playing out the script of any political party or an individual. Rather, he said the commission, in its decision, was guided by the law that set it up and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Dazang, who is the INEC Deputy Director of Publicity, said: “There is a court order that INEC should recognise Jimoh Ibrahim as the PDP candidate for the Ondo governorship election. Once there is a court order we must abide by it. INEC is an agency set up by law and its action must be guided by law. If you look at the list just released by INEC, you will find in front of Jimoh Ibrahim court order in bracket.

    “There is still room for change. I understand that the Jegede group has appealed against the ruling of the Federal High Court. If they were able to win at the appellate court and if there is an order that INEC should remove Jimoh’s name, INEC will go by it. It is not the responsibility of the INEC to challenge court rulings. Judges arrived at decisions based on evidence before them. Aggrieved candidates or parties should seek redress in court and whatever the court says INEC has no choice but to obey.

    “We had a similar situation in Abia where a PDP governorship aspirant, Mr. Uche Ogah contested the governorship primary and lost. He challenged the winner of the primary, Governor Okezie Ikpeazu, in court that he was not qualified to contest governorship shadow election, because the tax documents he attached to his nomination were not in order. When the Federal High Court nullified Ikpeazu’s election and directed INEC to issue Ogah the Certificate of Return, we complied. When the Appeal Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and upheld Ikpeazu’s victory, INEC withdrew the certificate issued to Ogah, based on the judgment of the appellate court, because the order was from a superior court.

    “In Edo, the candidate of the Makarfi group, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, was listed as the PDP candidate based on a court order. INEC has been consistent. We are not playing anybody’s script. If we receive any order from a superior court in the case of Ondo PDP, INEC will comply. Don’t forget we had an issue with Jimoh Ibrahim of recent, when he alleged that one of our staff demanded a bribe of $1 million from him, which has turned out to be false. INEC is not acting on the order of any political party or the Presidency.”

    Observers have absolved INEC of any wrong doing in the matter, saying the commission acted on the order of the court. A lawyer and activist, Mr. Monday Ubani, sees nothing wrong in what INEC has done. He said the electoral body acted within the ambit of law. According to him, INEC is bound to obey court order if the order is not from a court of coordinating jurisdiction.

    Ubani, the Second National Chairman, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), said Justice Abang has affirmed the earlier ruling that recognised Ali Modu–Sheriff as the authentic leader of the PDP and that based on this, he directed INEC to accept only candidates presented by the Sheriff group as PDP candidates. He said until that decision is reversed by a superior court INEC must comply with that order.

    The lawyer said hope is not lost for the Makarfi group. He said: “If the PDP wins the governorship poll and the appeal favoured them and the judgment was delivered after the election, Jegede will reclaim the mandate. The Supreme Court judgment on Kogi governorship election has affirmed that it is the political party that wins election, not the candidate. That is to say that the votes were cast for the political party, not the candidate.”

    A lawyer, Dr. Ajibola Basiru, said INEC did the right thing by obeying the court order. He said the crisis in the PDP has nothing to do with INEC, adding that the party is obliged to act according to the rule of law and on court rulings. The lawyer said it is better to act on the side of the law, rather than to take the course of impunity.

    Basiru condemned the attitude of politicising every issue to cast aspersion on institutions. He said: “What is the concern of President Muhammadu Buhari in the internal crisis of the PDP that they are trying to link him with? It is strictly a legal matter and the proper thing is to go to court and seek redress.”

     

    Whither the PDP?

     

    The latest development has grave implications for the PDP in the November 26 contest. The fresh crisis is likely to decimate the party as it prepares for the election. Analysts believe the new development has foreclosed the possibility of a last minute reconciliation that could have brought the two factions together and settle their differences for the purpose of winning the election. They also said the unity of purpose, which the PDP required to win the election, cannot be achieved, because of the animosity between Mimiko and Ibrahim. The possibility of both of them working together after the court decision is very slim.

    Analysts say if Ibrahim is finally recognised by the Court of Appeal, the PDP should just forget the election, because the odds against Ibrahim are overwhelming. His faction is not on ground. The key leaders of the PDP in Ondo are against his candidacy.

    Observers predict, that if the appeal favours Jegede and his name is returned on the list by INEC, the supporters of Jimoh would work against him, because they consider Jegede as a tool to actualise what they describe as Mimiko’s third term agenda. They believe Mimiko is contesting the governorship election by proxy; and if Jegede wins, Mimiko will be ruling the state indirectly.

    On the other hand, the victory of Jegede is very crucial to Mimiko, because it will determine his status in Ondo after leaving office. Analysts say his political relevance depends on Jegede winning the election. They cited the cases of the former PDP governors – Sule Lamido (Jigawa), Ibrahim Shema (Katsina) and Babangida Aliyu (Niger) – who failed in their attempt to install their anointed candidates as their successors; saying they have become ordinary members of the PDP in their states and at the national level.  That is why Mimiko is ready to go any length, they added, to ensure Jegede’ name is back on the list.

     

  • Walking a tightrope

    Walking a tightrope

    As an arbiter, a judge walks a tightrope. He stands between two or more litigants. He must be careful in whatever he says or does for him not to be accused of bias. What should a judge do when on the eve of delivering judgment on a case, he is accused of compromise, not by litigants before him, but by an online publication? Withdraw or continue with the case? ROBERT EGBE asks.

    Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on March  22,    withheld his   judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki.

    The suit, instituted by Saraki over  charges of false assets declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), urged the court to, among others, quash the charges.

    It also sought to restrain the tribunal, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other respondents in the suit from further arresting or prosecuting him on the issue.

    In announcing his decision to withdraw from the case, Justice Kafarati fingered reports by some on-line media, including Sahara Reporters and Naij.com, which he said created the impression that he had been financially compromised.

    Justice Kafarati said: “The two publications made allegations against my person, alleging that I have been compromised with N2 billion.

    “They also alleged that I am known in the legal cycle for being susceptible to corruption.

    “What this has done is to put my integrity to question. I, however, regard the publishers as people of unsound mind. They know that what they said is not true. They just derive  pleasure when they malign the integrity of a judicial officer.

    “It is unfortunate that we don’t have the appropriate laws to take care of this. As it stands, I am caught between two devils – if the  judgment goes in favour of Saraki now, they will say that I have been compromised; on the other hand, if it goes against him, they will say I have been intimidated.

    ‘’In the light of the allegation, I believe the right and appropriate thing to do is to disqualify myself and return the case-file to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another Judge.”

    After the judge’s decision, one of Saraki’s lawyers, Ajibola Oluyede, suggested that the EFCC was behind the reports.

    Although he admitted that the judge took the right steps, Oluyede lamented that his client would be the one to suffer.

    He added: “It is equally bad that the EFCC has gone to this level. We know that it is behind the publications.

    “It is worrisome that this practice, of using the media, particularly Sahara reporters to malign judges into abdicating from matters is dangerous. It amounts to attacks on the rule of law and our democracy.

    “There should be an investigation as to the source of the Sahara Reporters’ story and appropriate sanctions against culprits no matter how highly placed.

    “On our part, we shall commence criminal contempt proceedings against the now known proprietors of Sahara Reporters and ensure they are deterred from this criminal use of their online medium.”

     

    EFCC denies involvement

     

    In a swift rebuttal the following day, the EFCC denied any involvement in the allegation against the judge.

    In a publication on its website, the anti-graft agency said: “It has become necessary to state that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC had no hand in the report which is entirely the imagination of the authors.

    “All allusions to the Commission’s investigation or documents in the said publication should be disregarded. At no time did the EFCC share intelligence or revealed the content of any dossier it may have on any judge for that matter with any media organisation either in Nigeria or abroad.”

    Justice Kafarati’s case is not unique. On June 11, 2014, Justice Adebukola Banjoko was appointed to hear a case of corruption against a former chairman, House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy, Farouk Lawan and its Secretary Boniface Emenalo.

    Both men were charged by the EFCC with collecting $620,000 as bribe from oil magnate Femi Otedola.

    But on November 18, 2014, barely five months after the case was assigned to her, Justice Banjoko surprised a packed courtroom when she announced that she was withdrawing from the trial and would no longer adjudicate the case.

    Her reason: to stem an allegation that sought to impugn her integrity.

    Earlier, Lawan, through his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), filed an application dated October 29, asking the judge to quit the case. Lawan also petitioned the FCT Chief Judge, accusing Justice Banjoko of likely bias based on an alleged close relationship between her and Otedola, a proposed witness and the accuser in the case.

    “In my 17 years on the bench, six years as a magistrate and 11 years as a judge, I have never been confronted with a scandalous challenge of my integrity,” the judge said bitterly.

    “In the prevailing circumstances, I do find it difficult to continue this case. This case is returned to the honourable Chief Judge for re-assignment,” Justice Banjoko ruled.

    The case, now re-assigned, is being handled by a third judge.

     

    What does the law require of judges?

     

    The judges appear to have acted in compliance with the law. They are required to withdraw from any matter where their impartiality may be reasonably questioned.

    The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers lists several reasons for which a judge can be disqualified from a matter. Section C(1) of the law is particularly relevant in this case. It says:

    A Judicial Officer should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the instances where:

    (a)   he has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of facts in dispute;

    (b)   he served as a legal practitioner in the matter in controversy, or a legal practitioner with whom he previously practised law served during such association as a legal practitioner concerning the matter or the Judicial Officer or such legal practitioner has been a material witness in the matter;

    (c)    he knows that he individually or as a Judicial Officer or his spouse or child, has a financial or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

    (d)    he or his spouse, or a person related to either of them or the spouse of such person;

    (i)    is a party to the proceedings, or an officer, director or trustee of a party;

    (ii)    is acting as a legal practitioner in the proceedings;

    (iii)   is known by the Judicial Officer to have an interest which could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

    (iv)    is to the Judicial Officers knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceedings.

     

     Lawyers weigh in

     

    Chie Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN) said there was nothing wrong with a judge withdrawing in such circumstance.

    He said: “If there are such allegations in the press that can make any of the parties feel uncomfortable with his decision, I think the proper thing for a judge is to withdraw. There is nothing wrong with that.”

    As to whether the judge should bring the publication to the knowledge of the litigants so that they can decide whether or not they think allegations are strong enough to make him continue adjudicating over the matter or to withdraw, Fagbohungbe felt that was an option that could have been taken.

    He said: “I agree that he could have done that, more so as it is not any of the parties that made the allegations, but if the publication is so damaging that it can prejudice his position then of course there is nothing wrong in him declining to read the judgment.

    “I agree that the allegations may all be speculations, but all the same, a judge cannot go to press to defend himself. I think the best thing to do, is what he has done.

    The Chairman of the Ogoja Branch of the NBA, Andrew Atsu, reasoned that Justice Kafarati stood the risk of being sanctioned by the National Judicial Council (NJC), if he had not declined to announce judgment.

    He said: “I don’t know the evidence he was confronted with that made him to say that he was withdrawing. But issues of fraud are taken very seriously by judges, if he had not reacted, the National Judicial Council (NJC) must have been watching. They could have taken disciplinary action against him.

    “So, one of the duties for you as a judge in the Temple of Justice is to make sure that the common man perceives that your judgment protects him at all times.

    “As far as I’m concerned, that judge withdrawing is proper, no matter the stage of the litigation, even if it is just left to give judgment.”

    A former Chairman of the NBA Ikeja Branch, Monday Ubani said there may or may not be a request from any of the parties asking the judge to disqualify himself, before he does so.

    He added: “There are times an application can be brought for a judge to disqualify himself from handling a case that is before him and if you present any credible evidence to establish bias, a judge can withdraw from that matter and say he will not handle that matter based on so and so reason.

    “Now in this particular case, what the judge is saying is that there is a publication of an online newspaper alleging that he has been compromised. And he doesn’t want anything that’ll soil his name.”

    National President, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwummadu, said it is irrelevant whether the allegation of bias was not raised by any of the parties to the suit.

    He said: “It is immaterial whether the allegation came from outside the parties. The court can withdraw suo moto, that is, on its own, without the prompting of any of the parties. What is always in issue in respect of withdrawals by judges from matters pending before them is the likelihood of bias, not even bias but the likelihood of bias.

    “In the Second Republic, a matter came before the High Court of Oyo State in the Old Oyo State involving the then governor, Bola Ige, and the matter was assigned to Hon. Justice Ige, that is Bola Ige’s wife.

    “She didn’t even wait to start hearing before withdrawing, she suo moto raised the likelihood of bias. She disqualified herself because she must have felt that even if she tried her best, justice would not have been seen to have been done in a matter in respect of which her husband is a party.’’

    He added that the difference in the Saraki case is: “This matter has gone the whole hog up to judgment stage. In my view Justice Kafarati is right. Whatever else anyone says, the issue is, was there such a publication? If there was, then the manner and mode that it appeared, namely, that he had been compromised by as much as the amount mentioned; even if it was on the judgment day, he is right, in my view, to have suo moto withdrawn, even if the allegation was not made by any of the parties.”

     

    What happens to the time and effort spent?

     

    Ugwummadu, who is also the Legal Adviser of the Movement For the Liberation of Southern Sahara, argued that it is more important for justice to be done than to dwell on the amount of resources spent by all the all parties to a suit.

    He said: “It is true that the litigants have spent so much on the matter; it is also true that the lawyers have spent so much time. Yet it is also true that the judge had painstakingly adjudicated over the matter up to that point of judgment, and he probably must have also written his judgment.

    “But in compliance with the oath of judicial office that he took, he needn’t proceed with that judgment, more so when he saw the publication and which was direct, in his view, and categorical in their assertion.”

    Ugwummadu also said judicial officers are free to contest the allegations against them in court.

    He said: “Yes, it is true that judges don’t join issues with the public, but, in instances like this, one would advise that the judge can find a way to seek representation. Defamation is defamation; it is immaterial whether it is against a judge. A judge can engage a lawyer to contest the propriety of what you said against him, without coming on the pages of a newspaper to defend himself.

    “If he goes ahead with the judgment, with such a damming publication against him, the public will lose confidence in the judiciary and that is worse than him refusing to deliver judgment.”

     

  • Heartland walk tightrope

    Heartland walk tightrope

    Nigeria’s representatives in the CAF Confederation Cup Heartland have a mountain to climb in Libreville after only managing a 2-1 home win over visiting US Bitam of Gabon in the first leg, first round tie played at the Dan Anyiam Stadium, Owerri on Sunday.

    Jolly Osas scored the Naze Millionaires’ opening goal in the 22nd minute through a mix from the defence of US Bitam. A floated long thrust from Heartland’s player was left for the goalkeeper, Stephen Bitsiki to catch but Osas found his way to nod the ball beyond his reach and the ball went unguarded into the net.

    Isa Akor doubled Heartland’s goals advantage in the 52nd minute when he reacted fast enough to an inviting cross from the flank from David Tyavkase. He was unfortunate not to have scored earlier after his effort was wrongly adjudged offside in the 13th minute.

    The visitors benefitted from the Naze Millionaires’ momentary loss of concentration to get a precious away goal in the 54th minute through Alain Djessikadle whose angular shot went past Ebele Obi who was until then a complete spectator in the goal line of Heartland.

    US Bitam was reduced to 10 in the 64th minute when Emmanuel Ndonomba deservedly got his second yellow card after fouling Tope Olusesi who was clearly goal bound.

    Despite having numerical advantage Heartland couldn’t get another goal until the centre referee signalled the final whistle.

    They will have their hands full in the second leg tie slated for Libreville in the weekend of 5-7 April,2013.

    The Naze Millionaires frittered away many scoring chances and could rue this in the return leg encounter where a solitary unreplied goal could mark their exit from the second tier Africa’s club competition.